398811 Sun May 06 05:52:57 -0700 2007 15 34 Wine 0 2545641 An interesting article examining the myth of tasting the earth in a glass of wine. Reminds me of a convincing article I once read that said the only thing that changes from that first taste to the second after you let a wine breath is the chemistry in your mouth. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/06/style/tmagazine/06tdirt.html?ref=tmagazine Sun May 06 05:52:57 -0700 2007 19281 2top 1 2545885 What a great article! I find all this discussion about terroir somewhat irritating and McGee and Patterson have so wonderfully captured what it is that I find frustrating. The word is in so many cases in the US, being used as this vague term by those in the wine industry as a marketing effort to the consumer to mean quality. Its use is so distorted in my opinion that you can't really tell if it means quality or just the illusion of quality without doing a fair amount of one's own research about the winemaker and winery purporting terroir. Thanks for pointing out the article - well worth the time to read. Sun May 06 08:47:51 -0700 2007 2545641 52088 huruta 2 2546172 I don't know . . . I find several flaws in the article. To speak of "terroir" as in literal flavors is a mistake, and few I know in the trade actually do this. It is more a "sense of place," more of the "metaphorical" as the article mentions in the fourth paragraph. It's also a mistake -- same paragraph -- to claim that "wine with flavors of berries or tropical fruit and little or no minerality are therefore assumed not" to exhibit terroir. Above all else, "terroir" is -- for me -- a sense of place, and is in no way confined to France (or the Old World in general), nor is it absent from places like California (or the New World in general). But what it is NOT is a term invented and used by wine trade in the US to describe, or to mean, "quality." Sun May 06 11:05:14 -0700 2007 2545885 28122 zin1953 3 2546194 Agreed. Now the issue of "quality" vs "sense of place" may be hyped by marketing-types and the consumers may well fall into that trap, I think that many winemakers work hard to capture the unique essence, that their "place" provides. First thought, for me, is Rutherford "dust" in the Cabs from that area of Napa. I've seen too many wines, made from similar clones, grown in similar areas, that changed noticably, when the exact source of the grapes was changed. Same winemaker, same style, almost the exact same grapes, but now from "over the ridge," etc. and it is different - mostly for the worse IMHO. I think that the issue should be about the "marketing" of terroir, rather than the concept itself. Hunt Sun May 06 11:16:11 -0700 2007 2546172 11329 Bill Hunt 3 2547954 >>>To speak of "terroir" as in literal flavors is a mistake<<< So then, if, as you perused the shelves of a local wine shop, you were shown a photo of the rocky slopes where a particular grape was grown for a particular wine -- say a Riesling Kabinett troken -- and a sales person in the wine shop showed you a little baggie filled with the rocky gatherings from that very slope, and spoke to you about "terroir" and how the wine gets its "mineral" characteristics from (among other things) the ground in which the vines are grown, would you say you were being told a marketing fairy tale? Mon May 07 08:34:35 -0700 2007 2546172 49600 CindyJ 4 2548734 Cindy, I think "fairy tale" is too strong of a term to use. There is lots of evidence to show that minerals from rocks do not get absorbed through the roots and those minerals do not appear inside the individual grapes. That said, the French "terroir" is most accurately described a sense of place, rather than literally the earth, the dirt itself. Thus, the Riesling that is grown in the slate of the Saar will be quite different than the Riesling grown in the richer, loamy soil of Monterey County, California. The Chardonnay that is grown in the chalky soil of Chablis will yield a quite different wine -- presuming *identical* handing/production techniques inside the winery than the Chardonnay that is grown in volcanic soil of the Napa Valley. And so on . . . We in the States tend to talk about the "micro-climates" in which the grapes are grown, but that doesn't include the composition of the soil, the lay of the land, the angle of exposure to the sun, etc. We tend to translate "terroir" as the soil, but that doesn't include the entire "sense of place." If you combine the two, you get much closer to the real meaning of "terroir" -- it *is* the soil and sub-soil strata, but it's also the angle of exposure to the sun, the fact that the slope means there are shadows over the vineyard until 10:30 every morning, and that the proximity to the ocean means that fog often rolls in around 4:00 every afternoon . . . it is EVERYTHING having to do with, having an effect upon *that* specific site. Mon May 07 12:00:16 -0700 2007 2547954 28122 zin1953 5 2549122 Thanks, Zin. I really do think I'm beginning to get a better grasp of the meaning of terroir. Before this discussion, I was taking the definition quite literally; but now I'm wondering if "terroir" encompasses even more than what's apparent by observation. For example, take two neighboring vineyards -- same slope, same soil, same grapes, same exposure to the elements. Could it be that the ways in which the growers cultivate those vines lend distinction to their wines? What I'm asking is, does "sense of place" extend to nurture as well as nature? Mon May 07 13:40:28 -0700 2007 2548734 49600 CindyJ 6 2549480 The problem is there is no "bright line" distinction . . . Take the difference between "aroma" and "bouquet." Most of us use these terms interchangably, and that's fine, but *technically* the term "aroma" is defined as the smell of the grapes in the wine, and "bouquet" is defined as those smells "added" in the winery, through the choice of what yeast to use for fermentation; the choice of what wood to use (or not use), the choice to put the wine through malolactic fermentation (or not), the choice to age the wine sur lie (or not), etc. So if "terroir" is all about THAT place on the planet, and the winemaker decided to use indigenous yeast for fermentation . . . Different yeasts can dramatically affect the wine, and clearly the choice to use a cultured strain of yeast is made by the winemaker and takes place in the winery and is part of the bouquet (rather than aroma). But if the indigenous yeast is employed, that too is a choice, yet it is part of that place, that unique spot on the planet . . .so -- is it nature or nurture? Clearly the way the vines are pruned and their crop load can and will affect the quality of the grapes. And it is a human-made decision. But I think it's a decision that -- at least in the case of over-cropping -- can only result in the "destruction" of terroir, i.e.: you can lose any sense of place with too heavy a crop load. So if it's as simple as -- to be drastically obvious about it -- two tons per acre versus eight, I'd say that's not part of the terroir. But if the yields are controlled by regulation, as they are in any vineyard granted appellation controlee status by the INAO of France, and neither vineyard exceeds the legally permitted yield, but one grower decides to prune his vineyard using the ancient Goblet method, and one decided to trellis the vineyard using the Scott-Henry method . . . . I don't know . . . . Mon May 07 15:27:24 -0700 2007 2549122 28122 zin1953 7 2551048 So are you saying that "aroma" speaks to terroir, but "bouquet" does not? Or are you saying that the answer is not clear? Either way, I find the distinction between "aroma" and "bouquet" really interesting, and that distinction begs another question: As these two terms refer to nuances in olfactory observation, are there comparable terms that refer to that distinction in gustatory observation? That is, are there words that describe the flavors of the grapes in the wine as opposed to the flavors in the wine that have been "added" in the winery? Tue May 08 07:03:29 -0700 2007 2549480 49600 CindyJ 8 2551115 Aroma CAN speak of terroir -- but terroir can also be destroyed by policies in the vineyard (overcropping, irrigation, etc.). Bouquet never speaks of terroir, as it's solely winery-driven. That said, remember that the distinction between "aroma" and "bouquet" is beyond what most non-professionals -- even many professionals -- recognize. It just isn't that important, in a sense. As far as separate terms for taste that compare to the distinction between "aroma" and "bouquet," I know of none specifically drawn that fine. But just as UC Davis (and others) separate -- or at least, try to -- "aroma" from "bouquet," and both from "bottle bouquet," so do does Davis try to separate "flavor" from "flavor by mouth." Much of what one tastes, after all, is actually driven by the olfactory sense, so UC Davis used to (I don't know if they still do) use people who, for some reason or another, lost their sense of smell -- and would have them taste and evaluate wines. But the tongue can only detect five components: sweet, sour, salt, bitter and umami -- so I've never seen the benefit of this distinction. Then again, we're talking scientific-based academics, and that's not necessarily the real world. Tue May 08 07:27:27 -0700 2007 2551048 28122 zin1953 9 2552927 Okay -- you're saying that you and UC Davis make similar distinctions between "aroma" and "bouquet," and although I doubt that *I* could ever discern the difference by swirling and sniffing, I understand the distinction, at least conceptually. So I reached for my Wine Aroma Wheel to see whether or how the Wheel might address this distinction. But instead of clarity I found confusion. Here's why: You wrote above, "Bouquet ... [is] solely winery-driven" and that "...UC Davis (and others) separate -- or at least, try to -- 'aroma' from 'bouquet,' ... " However, on the back of the Aroma Wheel it says, "Much of the aroma in wine comes from the starting grapes and contributes to their distinctive, varietal flavors. Winemaking operations modify these aromas in characteristic ways." Now, if I'm understanding YOUR distinction between "aroma" and "bouquet", shouldn't the Aroma Wheel read, "...Winemaking operations modify these BOUQUETS in characteristic ways."? If I'm beating this one beyond reason, just say so. Unfortunately, it's always been my nature to ask "just one more question." Tue May 08 15:49:53 -0700 2007 2551115 49600 CindyJ 10 2553783 Cindy, ALWAYS ask one more question! It's how you (and those reading) learn. Indeed, it's how we ALL learn. Remember I said that most people don't make the distinction between "aroma" and "bouquet"? UC Davis professor Ann Noble developed the Aroma Wheel to attempt to somehow standardize the descriptors used for wine, AND to try and get people to be as specific as possible with their descriptors so that the reader could develop a clearer idea of a wine by reading someone's tasting note. (For example, "apple" is more specific than "fruity"; "Pippin apple" [or "Jonathan"] is more specific than "apple"; etc.) All grammar aside, if you start with "aroma" and winemaking alters (or at least "adds") to it, wouldn't you really say, "Winemaking operations modify these aromas by adding additional bouquet"??? ;^) Tue May 08 21:38:31 -0700 2007 2552927 28122 zin1953 11 2553827 A lot of francophone wine people I know define *bouquet* as being not the aromas that the winemaker adds but rather the aromas that develop in the bottle as the wine ages. Your and CindyJ's interesting discussion has made me pull out a few reference books, which I cite here for discussion purposes. Michael Broadbent's Pocket Guide to Wines: "Bouquet in the broadest and most often-used sense, the pleasant and characteristic smell of wine. In the narrower sense, the odour created by the wine's own development: by the esters and aldehydes formed by the slow oxidation of fruit acids and alcohol." The New Connoisseurs' Handbook of California Wines: "Technically, that part of a wine's smell that develops after it is put in the bottle. Since most of the smell develops before bottling and bouquet comes mostly with years of cellar aging, the term 'aroma' is almost always more appropriate when discussing a wine's smell." OTOH, the Oxford Companion to Wine is closer to your interpretation (emphasis mine): "...many wine professionals distinguish between the simple aroma of the grape and the bouquet of the more complex compounds which evolve as a result of fermentation, *élevage* and bottle ageing. There is little consistency in usage, however, and many authorities differ about which point in a wine's life cycle represents the point at which a wine's smell stops being an aroma and becomes a bouquet." Me, I tend to avoid bouquet, turning instead to nose. But there are some wines, almost invariably older vintages, whose nose is so enchanting, so soft, sweet and -- dare I say -- feminine, that bouquet seems the only apt descriptor. Tue May 08 22:02:06 -0700 2007 2553783 10520 carswell 12 2554363 Right. The keys above, I think, are a) "little consistency in usage," and b) "many authorities differ about which point in a wine's life cycle represents the point at which a wine's smell stops being an aroma and becomes a bouquet." Just to add fuel to the fire, so to speak, Alexis Lichine wrote in Alixis Lichine's Encyclopedia of Wines and Spirits, 5th Edition: "The first perfume is the bouquet; the later, more lingering odor, is the aroma." (This is exactly the opposite of most definitions!) Keep in mind that UC Davis attempts to take an objective, scientific approach to sensory evaluation, a process whch, by its very definition, is subjective. Thus, the attempt to distinguish between a) aroma, b) bouquet, and c) bottle bouquet. The attempt, in and of itself, is laudable, and it is easy (I think) to see the rationale behind it. But reality and human nature act against it, and the terms "aroma" and "bouquet" remain largely interchangable . . . along with "nose," "smell, "perfume" and any other term one can think of. ;^) Wed May 09 07:16:17 -0700 2007 2553827 28122 zin1953 11 2554604 YES!!! I think Zin's re-wording of that sentence describes PRECISELY what we're saying. Maybe it's time for Ann Noble to edit the verbiage on the Aroma Wheel. To further affirm and fine-tune the consensus of definitions and distinctions of "aroma" vs "bouquet" I offer the following from "Exploring Wine: The Culinary Institute of America's Complete Guide to Wines of the World: "The smell of a young wine is an aroma. The primary smell is that of the grape type and the secondary smell is that of the wine after the fermentation process. ...Aroma should not be confused with bouquet, the tertiary smell of a wine, which develops with age. Bouquet is the product of the aging process of the alcohols, acids, esters, enzymes, and other chemical compounds in the wine both in cask and in bottle. ...Unfortunately, there is no blanket statement for all wines regarding how much time is needed to be able to refer to the nose as the bouquet. Wines that have pronounced primary grape aroma and other smells, such as oak or alcohol, only suggest what the wine may achieve when time integrates the distinct parts into a more harmonious bouquet." BTW, Carswell -- I'm smitten with your exceptional use of the word "bouquet" to describe certain older-vintage wines. In fact, I'd love to be a fly on the wall, observing your discovery, when such a wine finds its way to your glass. Wed May 09 08:44:21 -0700 2007 2553783 49600 CindyJ 1 2546104 "If rocks were the key to the flavor of “somewhereness,” then it would be simple to counterfeit terroir with a few mineral saltshakers." Well, in fact many people do, in a way, by adding chemical tannins to the barrel, or wood chips, or what have you. What does that prove? Wine is a multi-, if not infinite- dimensional product. Trying to reduce it to a single dimension, or even a finite number of them, is futile. But it's also futile any attempt (as in the present article) to trivialise any single one of its multiple components. Sun May 06 10:32:16 -0700 2007 2545641 28703 RicRios